On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:48:48AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > > That said, maybe the easier choice for a *system* (such as v-thingy) > > > would be to simply to the full backup using pg_basebackup -x (or > > > similar), therefor not needing the log archive at all when restoring. > > > Yes, it makes the base backup slightly larger, but also much > > > simpler... As a bonus, your base backup would still work if you hosed > > > your log archive. > > > > It doesn't appear to me that that resolves Heikki's complaint: if you > > recover from such a backup, the state that you get is still rather vague > > no? The system will replay to the end of whichever WAL file it last > > copied. > > > > I think it'd be a great idea to ensure that pg_stop_backup creates a > > well defined restore stop point that corresponds to some instant during > > the execution of pg_stop_backup. Obviously, if other sessions are > > changing the database state meanwhile, it's impossible to pin it down > > more precisely than that; but I think this would satisfy the principle > > of least astonishment, and it's not clear that what we have now does. > > Should I add this as a TODO item? > Definitely, it would make sense to note that somewhere. Thanks! -- Michael
